Does This Statement Hold any Truth with our Fanbase?

[Living Corpse]

I'm willing to bet that anyone here younger than, like, 40, is a fan because of the films they watched on TV growing up. Stuff like Son of Godzilla or Godzilla vs. Monster Zero. Point is, I feel like a lot of Godzilla fans forgot why they love Godzilla in the first place and want it to be something it really isn't. =/

My first G film was King of The Monsters at age 6 after I got it for Christmas. So I can't speak for anyone else but when I think of Godzilla the 1954 version is the first one that pops in my head and is to me the Godzilla. Just saying.

[Inferno Rodan]

Well, it is almost undoubtedly a huge reason, if not the reason. Had Godzilla not been as message-laden, serious, and ideological as it was in 1954, there's not a very good chance we'd have seen 27 sequels (plus Emmerich's installment). Godzilla would've just become another piece of 50s-60s sci-fi cinema akin to The Giant Mantis, Rodan, Gorgo, or other monster movies (many ironically inspired by the original Godzilla anyways). Had Godzilla been something like Son of Godzilla --and bless that film's heart, no joke-- then you can bet your grain that the franchise would've never been granted with so little as the chance to have become so influential and vast. The reality is Godzilla was powerful movie, not just entertainment. So to use Godzilla as justification for why the franchise exists to the depths that it does today, I'd argue, is more than credible.

I disagree with this. The original movie wasn't very successful to my understanding. The real reason the franchise got so many installments is KKvsG.

[Tohosaurus]

I disagree with this. The original movie wasn't very successful to my understanding. The real reason the franchise got so many installments is KKvsG.

I actually agree with your last statement. King Kong vs Godzilla grossed over twice internationally what Godzilla/KotM originally had. Godzilla was somewhat controversial at the time as being a bit exploitative of recent events (much as how a new G film would be if it related itself to the recent Japanese disasters), but it was reasonably successful in Japan. In the United States, the edited version was indeed a commercial success, grossing $2 million in America alone (measly by today's standards, lol). Admittedly, Rodan actually grossed more in the United States if I recall correctly. However, my point is that we probably wouldn't have even received KKvG and had one (MAYBE two films) and it would've been mostly a stand alone as with other Toho monster movies at that time. GRA was lousy and didn't perform very well, which may be why Toho didn't launch a new Godzilla film for seven years rather than much sooner as became the norm for Showa Godzilla films.

[Tamura]

^ GRA actually did very good business, both in Japan and the US.

[Tohosaurus]

^ GRA actually did very good business, both in Japan and the US.

Did it now? Interesting. I had heard otherwise.

[Tyler]

The original was a success. That's why they made GRA to cash in on it. But when Toho got Kong they stuck him with Godzilla (instead of Frankenstein) to propel their own creation to stardom. Or something.

But on topic, I think an example of what most people think of Godzilla would be Devlin and Emmerich. When they made their movie they thought people only liked Godzilla in that MST3K sort of way. Some do, but some also take him seriously. I do, and what I mean by that is I look at the movies individually and see what they try to achieve. All Monsters Attack isn't Gojira but I think it still works as a satisfying story. The problem is some people want Godzilla to tear a monster's spine out and floss with it and think that alone will make the story work. It's not like I want Godzilla to dance around either, but you have to find balance and on the Internet people look at things in very black and white terms.

So basically when it comes to updated sci-fi properties I'd like Godzilla to emulate but not precisely rip off Star Trek and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I think looking at comic book stuff is the wrong idea. Godzilla is a cinematic character to begin with and he should be approached that way.

[TokyoVigilante]

A dark tone works when there is a point for it; something of the real world to anchor it. This is why it works in Gojira, because the dark subject matter was serving a larger purpose. If you made a similar film with people being vaporized, getting crushed by buildings, Godzilla gushing blood and cancerous radioactive tumors, but it was all shallow and pointless, then you've just made a film that is as childish as talking Minya, no matter how hard your R-rating is. People look at a film's tone in very two dimensional terms, unfortunately. I see a lot treating a darker toned film as if it just comes with baggage that justifies itself (or some who just do not understand what actual "mature subject matter" is). This just isn't for Godzilla, it is for a lot of nerd brands and franchises. The Heath Ledger Joker is the best because he's darker, Superman sucks because he's cheesy and poorly written, etc.

So basically when it comes to updated sci-fi properties I'd like Godzilla emulate but not precisely rip off Star Trek and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I think looking at comic book stuff is the wrong idea. Godzilla is a cinematic character to begin with and he should be approached that way.

This is true and while I do think that a no-frills purely cinematic treatment is probably the simplest way to go about it, Godzilla is unique in film in that he doesn't really have any counterpart for the size of the filmography the vastness of material that was created for it that is ripe to be explored. It would be a shame to miss out on golden opportunities to use some of that already established material to its absolute fullest and emulating some of the techniques that Marvel has been doing is one of the best ways of doing that, IMHO.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

So basically when it comes to updated sci-fi properties I'd like Godzilla emulate but not precisely rip off Star Trek and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I think looking at comic book stuff is the wrong idea. Godzilla is a cinematic character to begin with and he should be approached that way.

This is true and while I do think that a no-frills purely cinematic treatment is probably the simplest way to go about it, Godzilla is unique in film in that he doesn't really have any counterpart for the size of the filmography the vastness of material that was created for it that is ripe to be explored. It would be a shame to miss out on golden opportunities to use some of that already established material to its absolute fullest and emulating some of the techniques that Marvel has been doing is one of the best ways of doing that, IMHO.

After all, Marvel has been generating films that follow the original source material. Marvel also updated and produced films for both the general audience and the fan audience rather well. J. J. Abrams also succeeded this with Star Trek too. As much as I hate to say it, but Transformers, while not good movies, manage to grab the attentions of bother the general audience and the fans.

I think Marvel's techniques are something to be looked at. Same for Abrams.

[TokyoVigilante]

I think the real heart of the way Marvel works and how Abram's was able to adapt Star Trek successfully is to not treat your material like it is broken. All of Emmerich and Devlin's creative decisions come off as them trying to "fix" Godzilla (which is part of my problem with this insistence on dark-n-gritty content).

While I don't much care for atleast 60% of the creative choices that Nolan has made with Batman, those decisions don't feel like attempts at fixing. This applies to the content as well; the finale of The Dark Knight with Harvey and Gordon's family is almost crushingly grim and bleak, but it's been built up to this powerful moment and it's earned. It's not "HEY LOOK BATMANS NOT FOR KIDS LOOK HOW HARDCORE THIS ALL IS" which, again, alot of what I've seen in regards to the request for the LP Godzilla film.

[Cimmerian Dragon]

I'm willing to bet that anyone here younger than, like, 40, is a fan because of the films they watched on TV growing up. Stuff like Son of Godzilla or Godzilla vs. Monster Zero. Point is, I feel like a lot of Godzilla fans forgot why they love Godzilla in the first place and want it to be something it really isn't. =/

My first G film was King of The Monsters at age 6 after I got it for Christmas. So I can't speak for anyone else but when I think of Godzilla the 1954 version is the first one that pops in my head and is to me the Godzilla. Just saying.

My first Godzilla was 1985, followed by KotM and Mothra vs Godzilla. Although I saw Monster Zero and others shortly thereafter, the fact that my first three films depicted the Big Guy as a serious, deadly, frightening character have led me to think of him in a generally serious light. That doesn't stop me from loving the camp aspects of the later films, but I can't help seeing that depiction of Godzilla as a deviation from the character's norm, rather than an equally valid interpretation, regardless of whether the majority of films fall on the campy side of the spectrum.

In the end, I prefer Godzilla as a serious figure, but also one that is vaguely anthropomorphized. My personal Godzilla is a mental hybrid. This means that I can enjoy GMK and G2K on different but equal levels. Now, Megalon crosses a line for me, going too damn goofy and turning Godzy into a big, harmless teddy bear. On the other hand, Godzilla dancing in Monster Zero or playing rock-tennis in Sea Monster isn't a problem for me, since he is shown as a legitimate and violent threat at other points.

I see no reason why Godzilla can't be a nasty monster, and still have his occasional moment of camp fun. Likewise, I don't see why we can't have a serious "message-movie" in the franchise now and then, and then follow it up with a simple kaiju action-flick sequel. As others have stated, Godzilla's malleability is his strength.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

I think the real heart of the way Marvel works and how Abram's was able to adapt Star Trek successfully is to not treat your material like it is broken. All of Emmerich and Devlin's creative decisions come off as them trying to "fix" Godzilla (which is part of my problem with this insistence on dark-n-gritty content).

While I don't much care for atleast 60% of the creative choices that Nolan has made with Batman, those decisions don't feel like attempts at fixing. This applies to the content as well; the finale of The Dark Knight with Harvey and Gordon's family is almost crushingly grim and bleak, but it's been built up to this powerful moment and it's earned. It's not "HEY LOOK BATMANS NOT FOR KIDS LOOK HOW HARDCORE THIS ALL IS" which, again, alot of what I've seen in regards to the request for the LP Godzilla film.

True. What Nolan did was an adaption of Batman. Yes, it was a reboot, but it was not a reinvention of the character. He wasn't fixing the character or the series. He merely adapted the series to his own vision or creative ideas.

Treating the series as legitimate source materials and a guideline on how to create an adaption and a story. Often times, I say I like this idea, or that concept, and ignore the movie as a whole (its how I enjoy SpaceGodzilla for some odd reason). I realize that SpaceGodzilla offers an interesting idea. While it isn't executed well, the concept is a good one. As a writer, I take the idea and I try to do my own adaption of it. I'm not trying to fix it, I'm creating my own spin on it. After-all, I can't rectify the errors of the past. I can merely see what I can do with the ideas, concepts, or characters.

Here's an example of such. I'm working with an artist on an adaption of the Godzilla universe. I've changed Godzilla's origins a bit. While kept intentionally vague, he could be a product of a corporate chemical dumping or the Fukushima Daichii incident (though, the "official" explanation is chemicals). I've taken idea that Godzilla is created by this fallacy in human behavior, but adapted it to modern times.

I hope that all made sense. It seems really convoluted to me.

[Living Corpse]

I'm willing to bet that anyone here younger than, like, 40, is a fan because of the films they watched on TV growing up. Stuff like Son of Godzilla or Godzilla vs. Monster Zero. Point is, I feel like a lot of Godzilla fans forgot why they love Godzilla in the first place and want it to be something it really isn't. =/

My first G film was King of The Monsters at age 6 after I got it for Christmas. So I can't speak for anyone else but when I think of Godzilla the 1954 version is the first one that pops in my head and is to me the Godzilla. Just saying.

My first Godzilla was 1985, followed by KotM and Mothra vs Godzilla. Although I saw Monster Zero and others shortly thereafter, the fact that my first three films depicted the Big Guy as a serious, deadly, frightening character have led me to think of him in a generally serious light. That doesn't stop me from loving the camp aspects of the later films, but I can't help seeing that depiction of Godzilla as a deviation from the character's norm, rather than an equally valid interpretation, regardless of whether the majority of films fall on the campy side of the spectrum.

In the end, I prefer Godzilla as a serious figure, but also one that is vaguely anthropomorphized. My personal Godzilla is a mental hybrid. This means that I can enjoy GMK and G2K on different but equal levels. Now, Megalon crosses a line for me, going too damn goofy and turning Godzy into a big, harmless teddy bear. On the other hand, Godzilla dancing in Monster Zero or playing rock-tennis in Sea Monster isn't a problem for me, since he is shown as a legitimate and violent threat at other points.

I see no reason why Godzilla can't be a nasty monster, and still have his occasional moment of camp fun. Likewise, I don't see why we can't have a serious "message-movie" in the franchise now and then, and then follow it up with a simple kaiju action-flick sequel. As others have stated, Godzilla's malleability is his strength.

I wholeheartedly agree. Whenever the whole serious versus fun argument comes up I feel like only a handful of the people arguing realize a film can be both serious/dark and fun. After all that's where we get dark comedies from. I also saw Mothra versus Godzilla as my second BIG G film so even though I think he's at his best when he's meant to be taken serious I can still picture some personality in him and as grime as Godzilla was in that film they still managed to pull some laughs with him and make the film fun by having him be clumsy like when his tail got stuck in the one tower or when he tripe and fell into that castle while still making give off this serial killer vibe what with all the weapons failing to kill him, even the ones that did hurt him I.E. the lighting towers.

I still have fun with the campy films but even when watching my beloved "dark" ones I can see that they still went out of their way to still give him a personality and put some comic relief/humor in there while still trying to keep the gritty atmosphere. GMK did a pretty good job making him feel evil while still some funny moments like his slasher smile.

So basically when it comes to updated sci-fi properties I'd like Godzilla to emulate but not precisely rip off Star Trek and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I think looking at comic book stuff is the wrong idea. Godzilla is a cinematic character to begin with and he should be approached that way.

I agree with this somewhat but I can see why some would look at Godzilla from a comic book angle. The long running kaiju films/shows or ones that have kaiju such as Gamera, Godzilla, Ultraman and a few others have like several different continuities with new monsters being made or old ones being reinvented the main monsters and heroes being reinvented as well much like how there's Amazing Spider-man and Ultimate Spider-Man we have Showa Godzilla, GMK Godzilla, or Showa Gamera and Heisei Gamer and not to mention a crap ton of different version of Ultraman so I can see why people would make comparisons to comic books.

[Svitska Donkun]

I just would like to chime in that Gamera 3 is an example of making things dark for no reason whatsoever. It's actually a terrible film. I've come to realize this over the past few months. It seems to me people only like it because of how "serious" it is and how good the effects are, which in the films's defense are really good. In August Ragone's segment on the MST3K DVD set, at one point he said some people cheered when all those people flew up into an explosion. Like seriously? Are people that desperate for their franchise to be taken seriously that they'll flip out over a good but nonsensical effect? Gamera 3 only gets love because its dark and had good production values. I'm sure of it. The plot is broken, and I mean broken, with various plot threads appearing constantly, contradicting each other, and crammed full of characters with no clear motives that act nonsensically. I get the main gist of it, but even with what I do get, it feels like its ripped from some B-grade anime. Seriously, its even filmed and stylized like an Anime to the point where a lot of shit makes no sense at all. Shit, Gamera is in the movie less than Godzilla was in Final Wars. I could go Plinkett on how broken and stupid this movie is. It's like the Star Trek: Nemesis of Giant Monster Movies, but worse. Yet people still ignore all that and call it the best Kaiju film since Godzilla '54 because its dark and has good effects. That's all. And it skreeonk disgusts me. Is this movie REALLY what people want Godzilla to be like?

[Biollante]

The plot is broken, and I mean broken, with various plot threads appearing constantly, contradicting each other, crammed full of characters with no clear motives that act nonsensically?

I, uh, agree with this. A lot. The plot is all over the place and stuff just tends to...Happen? I wouldn't necessarily say it's a terrible film (Compared to most of the
'90's and '00s) but it's blatantly all style no substance. It's easily the worst of the Gamera Trilogy in my opinion.

[tymon]

Is this movie REALLY what people want Godzilla to be like?

I haven't seen G3 yet, but I would love modern Godzilla movies to be more like Guardian of the Universe - simple plot, nice pacing, fun characters that aren't all that annoying, excellent music and no shortage of (great) monster scenes. I love that goddamn movie.

[hammysammy59]

While I think G3 definitely has some pacing and character issues, I still like it overall. It never came across as needlessly "dark'n'gritty" to me. I mean these are monster movies, some light horror elements don't seem so out of left field to me. I might just be partial to Irys and its creepy relationship with the girl. I liked how it mirrored Gamera's relationship with the other girl in the first movie, and I found the arc of Gamera redeeming himself to the girl and the public at large very satisfying. The weird nihilistic video game designer character and his ladyfriend were idiotic though.

[Tohosaurus]

I just would like to chime in that Gamera 3 is an example of making things dark for no reason whatsoever.

I would have to respectfully disagree. Ayana is driven by rage throughout the entire movie, and that is taken advantage of; moreover, she's in many ways unable to cope with the loss of her family, which again fuels her hatred of Gamera to the point of wanting to kill him. Having such lust for vengeance is a very dark thing, indeed. That makes the dark undertone pretty digestible to me. Now I have said before that despite the fact that I think a lot of Gamera 3, I do find it to be somewhat over-rated.

In August Ragone's segment on the MST3K DVD set, at one point he said some people cheered when all those people flew up into an explosion. Like seriously? Are people that desperate for their franchise to be taken seriously that they'll flip out over a good but nonsensical effect?

While I would hardly cheer at the sight of it, scenes like that can be appreciated because they depict the events on a human level, somewhat similar to Godzilla following the crowd of running people in G85. Too often we just see Gamera or whoever just walking along city streets and such. Clips such as these show that amidst the monster action we're watching, people are dying, their homes and businesses are being destroyed. It's very dangerous and, well, awful.

Yet people still ignore all that and call it the best Kaiju film since Godzilla '54 because its dark and has good effects. That's all. And it skreeonk disgusts me. Is this movie REALLY what people want Godzilla to be like?

Anyone is entitled to whatever aspect of the movie they like, be it dark or whatever in this case. To be this intolerant of the views others may hold is impractical and not very becoming of a cinema enthusiast.

[Tomzilla]

If you're asking me if I think wanting a Godzilla film to be 'dark and gritty' makes me a fanboy, I'd happily disagree, mostly because I'd give you a more detailed explanation why I'd think that. I also think G3 is a great film not just because of its incredible SFX and 'dark, gritty' atmosphere. But that's for another thread.

First, we should ask ourselves what is a fanboy and what makes you one? A fanboy to me is a person whose obsession, with whatever it is they're into is, blinds them from other alternative prospects. A fan wanting the next Godzilla film to be dark and gritty, kinda like Gojira was, doesn't make them a fanboy. Now if it's the only thing they like and it's the only thing they want, and they're on a personal crusade to remind everyone of this--our differing opinions be damned--then yes, they're a fanboy.

So basically, I think fanboys are at war with anyone who disagrees with them.

It's hard to judge an entire fanbase this way. Most Godzilla fans I know love Gojira not because everyone else has placed it on some divine pedestal, but because they really like the film. It's the same with Gamera 3 and many other kaiju movies. You're better off claiming fans resent GODZILLA '98 because everyone else is doing it. Peer pressure happens all the time in person and on the internet. Of course, I'm sure many fans legitimately hate that film. But if I'm reading all this right, and if it's true fans love a certain movie because most of the fanbase loves it, it's equally valid to say the same about the movies you don't like. Sadly, the 'hive mentality' won't be going away anytime soon. Most people don't like confrontations, it tends to bring out the fanboy in 'em, so they either convert or keep it to themselves until compelled otherwise.

I try not to look into these things too much. Way I see it, if you like or hate a film, then please have reasons in advance if you were ever asked why. If you 'like' or 'hate' a film because others feel that way, then it's not really your opinion in the first place, so you should make up your own.

[Svitska Donkun]

I would have to respectfully disagree. Ayana is driven by rage throughout the entire movie, and that is taken advantage of; moreover, she's in many ways unable to cope with the loss of her family, which again fuels her hatred of Gamera to the point of wanting to kill him. Having such lust for vengeance is a very dark thing, indeed. That makes the dark undertone pretty digestible to me. Now I have said before that despite the fact that I think a lot of Gamera 3, I do find it to be somewhat over-rated.

This has no indication on the quality of the overall film. I can go into detail of what drives a character at face value, and in G3 its very obvious, but that doesn't make the film any better. Her character is still handled terribly, as are most of the other characters, in a plot that is broken. Just because revenge is what the story is about doesn't make the film any decent.

While I would hardly cheer at the sight of it, scenes like that can be appreciated because they depict the events on a human level, somewhat similar to Godzilla following the crowd of running people in G85. Too often we just see Gamera or whoever just walking along city streets and such. Clips such as these show that amidst the monster action we're watching, people are dying, their homes and businesses are being destroyed. It's very dangerous and, well, awful.

That entire sequence is completely out of character for Gamera in a way that's never properly explained. He hundreds of people in that scene wihtout caring or thinking, contrary to his previous appearances. It's violence for the sake of violence. That's it. Gamera killed way more people in that sequence than I can ever recall a Gayos killing. And then they try to back track all that murder with Gamera deciding to protect one kid. It's skreeonk stupid. They're just being dark and violent because they can. there's no real explanation and the military has every right to want to kill Gamera, which is not what you want the audience to think. IT seems like the script is trying to be ambitious here in discussing the ethics of a Monster destroying things in the name of our protection, but that falls flat on its face when Gamera destroys all of Shinjuku without a single skreeonk given.

[Tohosaurus]

This has no indication on the quality of the overall film. I can go into detail of what drives a character at face value, and in G3 its very obvious, but that doesn't make the film any better. Her character is still handled terribly, as are most of the other characters, in a plot that is broken. Just because revenge is what the story is about doesn't make the film any decent.

I responded to your statement of Gamera 3 being dark only for the sake of being dark and that there was no point. My post indicates that the plot would integrate a dark theme very well since it's about vengance. The quality therein is another matter altogether and you're perfectly entitled to your position, but was the movie pointlessly dark? I say no.

That entire sequence is completely out of character for Gamera in a way that's never properly explained. He hundreds of people in that scene wihtout caring or thinking, contrary to his previous appearances. It's violence for the sake of violence. That's it. Gamera killed way more people in that sequence than I can ever recall a Gayos killing. And then they try to back track all that murder with Gamera deciding to protect one kid. It's skreeonk stupid. They're just being dark and violent because they can. there's no real explanation and the military has every right to want to kill Gamera, which is not what you want the audience to think. IT seems like the script is trying to be ambitious here in discussing the ethics of a Monster destroying things in the name of our protection, but that falls flat on its face when Gamera destroys all of Shinjuku without a single skreeonk given.

Again, this is another matter entirely. But depicting the horrors of what's actually happening to humanity is not a vain effort. And you know what? Let's just say they were trying to be dark and violent for the sake of it. My response would then be: so what? If a person doesn't like it they don't have to watch it, much less like it. But to chastise it as being inferior JUST because it's pointlessly dark or violent in whatever manner is simply being intolerant.